DIVIDED CONTROL

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 36, 12 February 1930, Page 13

DIVIDED CONTROL

WILD LIFE PROBLEMS THE CASE FOR REFORM BEPLY TO CRITICS No. 1. By "Mamaku." One of tho most common methods of defenco resorted to in public controversies when one has a weak ease to bolster tip is to abuse the other side, endcavonr to belittle one's opponent by charging personal ignorance and imputing that lie is only tho mouthpioco of someone else, and generally to evade the main issue in a cloud of words in the hope that the public, who are tho judges, ■will fail to detect the subterfuge. In writing his articles on tho subject of wild life control, or rather tho lack of it, "Mamaku" fully anticipated that th 6 acclimatisation societies, in their replies, would adopt such well-worn methods of defence,-and ia the outcome he has not been disappointed. In fact, lie is encouraged in having written to such purpose that Mr-.P. E. Thornton, M.A., the chief ex--ponent of the societies, has enlivened his otherwise dull writings by tho use of such epithets as "froth of nothingness," "utter foolishness," "grave type of suppression.of the truth," "tho lie direct,"- "deliberately suppressed," etc., etc., but in replying "Mamaku" has no intention of following Mr. Thornton in ascending to such classical heights. He prefers instead to eonline himself to tho main issue, and to be aa brief as possible. ATTITUDE OF SELF-SATISFAC-TION. In "MamakuV view the whole tenor of. Mr. Thornton's five-column reply to his articles and the statement made by Mr. L. 0. H. Tripp to the "Wellington* Acclimatisation Society supply a complete confirmation of tho case he has endeavoured to present. Their attitude is on© of complete self-satisfac-tion. So far as wild life control in this country is concerned, they are plainly of opinion that we are living in the best of all possible houses, that under tho "wise administration" of the Internal Affairs Department, working in conjunction with, the A.S., it is absurd to expect improvement. It is just this attitude, so clearly annunciated by both of these gentlemen, and because it is fraught with_ such grave menace to', the economic interests of the country, that has compelled "Mamaku" to assume the role' of critic. Tho A.S., says Mr. Thornton, "definitely did not introduce the rabbit, stoat, ferret, weasel, .deer, moose, wapiti, chamois,, and thar." (Ho makes no .mention, of goats and pigs, which are growing menaces with the doer.) So what on earth is-there to worry about? He does not admit even that the deer have become a menace; indeed, he discounts all such statements, though he is faced with the fact that a national conference has been convened for March next to find a policy for dealing with tho problem. Under such cirenmstanes one may reasonably ask what Mr. Thornton's representations are really worth? Is he more concerned with endeavouring to cover np the societies' failings or with dealing with the problem? His main anxiety in January, .1930, seven and a half years after-the event, appears to be to shake public confidence in the Forestry Dejwrtment's report presented to Parlia- . nient in 1922 estimating that the number of doer then in New Zealand was 300,000 and stating that "herds probably increase by 25 per cent, annually." . Is it not a pity that Mr. Thornton and the A.S. did not wake up to the significance of this report in 1922 when it was presented to Parliament and they had every opportunity of challenging its accuracy? Instead they allowed the case to go by default and so have placed themselves out of court. Even Mr. Tripp, as a lawyer, will admit that the Statute of Limitations rules them. out. In any case for those in charge of wild-life control to begin to dispute the accuracy of that report now furnishes conclusive evidence that they have not .been alive to their responsibilities in tho past, MAIN ISSUE AVOIDED. As regards the matters of detail of administration in dispute between Mr. Thornton and "Mamaku" the public are not gravely concerned; they have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through many columns of further discussion if the various points were to be debated, so "Mamaku" does not propose to weary them, leaving it to those who are specially interested to draw their own conclusions ss to who is right and who is wrong; But what "Mamaku" submits tho public aro very keenly interested in is the main issue, which- both Mr. Tripp and Mr. Thornton seek to avoid. "What "Mamaku" has endeavoured to show is that under the existing state of affairs there is no" real policy, except that of inertia (if that can bo called a policy!) governing wild-life control; that there is no duly constituted body of experts to initiate and determine policy and to effect control; that every movement for reform has been blocked by the I.A.D. and the A.S.; that there is an alliance between the I.A.D. and tho A.S. which is not in the interests of the country inasmuch that, while the A.S. pass resolutions of confidence in the "Wise administration" of tho I.A.D. which "should not be disturbed," the A.S. receive substantial subsidies from the I.A.D. and have been able to accumulate big financial reserves; and that the I.A.D. and A.S., in their association, have so far neglected their duty in effecting control of wild life as to allow the deer, goat, pig, and other menaces to grow to such an extent as to seriously threaten the future economic welfare of the country. As the I.A.D. and tho A.S. assumed control of wild life many years ago and have resisted all efforts at reform, as they are resisting them now, they must bo held responsible for the existing state of affairs. They cannot escape that responsibility. If they contend they are not responsible, then they are asked to say who is, and to state at the same time who has received all the revenuo from wild life in the past. Do they deny that the deer, goat, and pig menaces exist? If they admit that they do exist, and unfortunately they must, will they state what is their policy for effectively dealing and not playing with them? If they have a policy for dealing with the deer then why convene another conference to find that policy, especially as the whole of the acclimatisation societies only meet in conference in Wellington in September last? Why the special action now? "THE BEST ADVICE." Mr. Tripp says that the I.A.D. has always sought the "best advice" in dealing with wild-life matters, but he has not stated tho Department's special qualifications other than "experience" for deciding upon it; neither has he oxplained how it is that after the Department has had tho bensftfc of such advice the country comes to bo faced with bo many wild-life menaces to-day. ■What is the conclusion to be drawn? Either the Department has or. has not acted upon that advice, and if it has so acted then that advice, to put it mildly, cannot havo been what Mr. Tripp and Mr. Thornton represent it to have been. Tho existing deer, goat, and pig menaces supply eloquent evidoneq as to that. A ' further instalment of "Mamaku 's" reply to Mr. Tripp and Mr. Thornton will be published in our next issue. , |